New photos of a Wounded George Zimmerman

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Exalted Pariah wrote:What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range? Also, head wounds bleed easily, they always look worse than they are. Regardless of who threw the first punch, zimmerman is guilty, guilty of instigating a fight that led to the death of another human being. In Las vegas a man was convcted of murder because he got into a fight with another man, KO'ed him, the guy hit is head on the concrete sidewalk and died. As a neighborhood watch captain, zimmerman knew you're NEVER supposed to confront a suspicious person, EVER. PERIOD. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

You're not good with whole law thing are ya boy? Justifiable self defense can be used when in reasonable fear of death or grievous harm and when the defendant is not the aggressor instigating the actual illegal event. Your above statement has zilcho to do with that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Exalted Pariah wrote:What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range? Also, head wounds bleed easily, they always look worse than they are. Regardless of who threw the first punch, zimmerman is guilty, guilty of instigating a fight that led to the death of another human being. In Las vegas a man was convcted of murder because he got into a fight with another man, KO'ed him, the guy hit is head on the concrete sidewalk and died. As a neighborhood watch captain, zimmerman knew you're NEVER supposed to confront a suspicious person, EVER. PERIOD. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

You do know that in autopsy speak 'intermediate range' is 1 to 18 inches, right?

And you do understand that who confronted who has NOT been determined yet, right?

And that if Martin did indeed double back to Zimmerman there is a decent chance Martin initiated the confrontation/started the fight, right?

Could Martin have claimed self defense for attacking Zimmerman if he thought he was a thread because he was following him? I know that also would depend on if he doubled back to confront him.

No. He was not in imminent fear of death of grievous harm. Further, following is not even illegal.

**Chongara**

No. He was not in imminent fear of death of grievous harm.

Well, he should have been. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

**LoneLictor**

mattyrm wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
So, just because one police officer didn't charge Zimmerman, that means that no one is ever allowed to have opinions on it ever?

Just like if one politician says something, we all have to agree with him because we're not politicians.

See, this is why I don't bother replying to you, its like you just invent things from every post I type. When the feth did I say "No one is ever allowed an opinion ever!"

I said, If the guy who is the expert (DA) didn't bother charging the guy, then I'm not interested in a story because I instantly write it off as media hysteria.. and then fething Spike Lee gets involved and I fully dont give a gak. America is a civilised nation goverenmed by the rule of law. If the DA says "feth it" then 99% of the time, its the right call. He is the expert, you and Spike Lee aren't.

Simple fact is, maybe the soldier in me is good at following orders, but that's the way I roll. I don't believe a total halfwit would get to be the DA in the first place, and secondly the DA knows the law, so instantly after 5 minutes reading the story, I think "feth it, non story" and move on.

Now, maybe, the DA fethed it up and it was a racist murder. But if your going to question absolutely everything you wont get anything done, you wont trust the doctor, you wont trust the dentist, and you will believe CIA affiliated Free mason Muslim ninja's blew up the twin towers.

I'm not interested in this story as a result of the evidence, I doubt the guy did anything wrong, and its more likely I am right and you are wrong. If it turns out I'm wrong, then feth me, ill be surprised and Ill come back and say "I was wrong, you were right, well done" but generally, how I get on in life, is by listening to an expert on the topic in hand, and if its not that interesting as a result of said experts advice, moving on.

Which Is why as I stated earlier I initially didn't post. Not that interested. If the DA says its good enough, then its good enough. If it comes out in the future that the DA is corrupt and incompetent, then Ill come back for a discussion.

Your allowed an opinion on whatever you like, I don't have to read it though.

Waaait, what? Please restate this in a way so that it makes a lick of sense. It looks like you just retyped your old post, except you tried to include as many words and vague, passive aggressive insults are possible. And you talked about yourself a lot too.

**Exalted Pariah**

CptJake wrote:
Exalted Pariah wrote:No, while I saw foxnews had a "expert"(all experts on tv are "experts" btw) say it could mean 1-18 inches, I'll wait for the trial. Also, I was just wondering why there was no discussion on it, not trying to make a point.

Well your whole "Zimmerman is GUILTY!!" schtick is pretty uninformed. You seem to be injecting a lot of emotion vice looking at what little evidence has been presented and willfully ignoring the FACT that neither you nor I know WHO started the fight or WHO confronted who, making your guilty verdict premature at best.

But he is guilty, guilty of confronting a suspicious person. He should not have done that. And to those that say he was getting back in his truck when martin attacked him, how come the witnesses only saw them where martin was shot? In between the communitys' buildings, far away from the road and zimmermans truck? I don't know if its murder and I don't care. What I care about is that because zimmerman made the decision to follow martin AND confront him, martin is dead.

**AustonT**

@LoneLictor

1. Police officers don't charge people for crimes. They arrest them for crimes or suspicion of crimes.

2. The police officers on the scene DID arrest Zimmerman

3. The District Attorneys office, probably an ADA, chose not to charge Zimmerman with a crime.

mattyrm wrote:CIA affiliated Free mason Muslim ninja's blew up the twin towers.

you signed a confidentiality agreement! The CIA paramilitary activities division Freemason deist ninjas are on their way to your flat.

**CptJake**

Exalted Pariah wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Exalted Pariah wrote:No, while I saw foxnews had a "expert"(all experts on tv are "experts" btw) say it could mean 1-18 inches, I'll wait for the trial. Also, I was just wondering why there was no discussion on it, not trying to make a point.

Well your whole "Zimmerman is GUILTY!!" schtick is pretty uninformed. You seem to be injecting a lot of emotion vice looking at what little evidence has been presented and willfully ignoring the FACT that neither you nor I know WHO started the fight or WHO confronted who, making your guilty verdict premature at best.

But he is guilty, guilty of confronting a suspicious person. He should not have done that. And to those that say he was getting back in his truck when martin attacked him, how come the witnesses only saw them where martin was shot? In between the communitys' buildings, far away from the road and zimmermans truck? I don't know if its murder and I don't care. What I care about is that because zimmerman made the decision to follow martin AND confront him, martin is dead.

What evidence is ther Zimmerman confronted Martin? None of the witnesses we've heard about state that. The phone calls do not indicate it. You have NOTHING that indicates Zimmerman confronted Martin. It is pure speculation on your part until the prosecutor discloses some evidence. Until you can admit that to yourself you are gonna have issues communicating effectively on this topic.

Again, look at the timeline I posted. It seems to use known time/distances and indicates Zimmerman had stopped following Martin. If you doubt that link, show something credible that refutes it.

Even if he did 'confront' Martin, what law makes it illegal to confront a suspicious person? What exactly would he be 'guilty' of?

**AustonT**

Not necessarily guilty, but provocation invalidates self defense until a reasonable fear for life exists and then self defense is back.

**CptJake**

But again, right now, no one posting here has anything resembling proof that Zimmerman did confront Martin let alone initiate the physical altercation.

All that has to be established if the prosecution hopes to get a conviction.

**AustonT**

I think we two have actually run around this horn together before, and you have convinced me that Zimmerman did not actively provoke Martin.

I still believe that Zimmerman approached the situation with malice aforethought. It's a personal conviction though not a legal one. Legally speaking I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is golden. The trial will only waste the time and money of the State of Florida and the breath of countless demagogues.

**CptJake**

AustonT wrote:I think we two have actually run around this horn together before, and you have convinced me that Zimmerman did not actively provoke Martin.

I still believe that Zimmerman approached the situation with malice aforethought. It's a personal conviction though not a legal one. Legally speaking I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is golden. The trial will only waste the time and money of the State of Florida and the breath of countless demagogues.

Here I disagree with you. It probably is not a waste of money if it brings a resolution either way. No decision is going to please everyone, BUT a decision by a judge does force both sides to present their evidence and the public will end up better informed (if they allow themselves to be) and the official answer will be given. There is worth to that in my mind.

**Ouze**

Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

**Bromsy**

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Bromsy wrote:
Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

**Bromsy**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

That ship sailed a long time ago. Guns, with decent maintenance will last a long ass time - you can make guns illegal but you can't make them disappear.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Bromsy wrote:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

That ship sailed a long time ago. Guns, with decent maintenance will last a long ass time - you can make guns illegal but you can't make them disappear.

I know but's nice to dream

**mattyrm**

AustonT wrote:@LoneLictor

1. Police officers don't charge people for crimes. They arrest them for crimes or suspicion of crimes.

2. The police officers on the scene DID arrest Zimmerman

3. The District Attorneys office, probably an ADA, chose not to charge Zimmerman with a crime.

See Auston gets its. Why do I need to retype my post? Anybody with the ability to read properly can understand it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:
Waaait, what? Please restate this in a way so that it makes a lick of sense. It looks like you just retyped your old post, except you tried to include as many words and vague, passive aggressive insults are possible. And you talked about yourself a lot too.

See above, as I said, your literally the only person on the board ive got no interest in speaking to. What I wrote made total sense, it can be summed up in ten words, and as a result I think your being willfully ignorant in order to provoke a reponse.

And its working curse you!

Here is the ten words by the way..

If the DA said no prosecution required, I trust him.

**Bromsy**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

That ship sailed a long time ago. Guns, with decent maintenance will last a long ass time - you can make guns illegal but you can't make them disappear.

I know but's nice to dream

Yeah, but why half ass it - dream that all the guns in the world turn into bacon. Then we can go back to muscle driven combat and really lord it over the women again, like god intended. Plus we'd have a delicious snack.

**ShumaGorath**

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

**AustonT**

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

He didn't have a gun, kind of a durr statement and yet totally relevant. Had Trayvon had a gun this would have never gotten to the news. Because a Juvenal delinquent (you can add black if you feel like it matters) shooting a man in the streets isn't news

Bromsy wrote:Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

Absolutely. We can all hold hands and talk about peace until the cows come home. Violence, naked force,[or the credible threat thereof] has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.R. Hienlein

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

1. no you can't
2. prove it
3. Don't circumvent the language filter, we all know what fething means

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

I know but's nice to dream

Dream in your own country. We have guns, that's why your country doesn't GET to dream here; just in case you had forgotten.

**ShumaGorath**

mattyrm wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

No not really, I was just taking the piss.

The point was, the people who know what they are talking about didn't see fit to charge the guy, so who gives a feth?

Because they didn't know what they were talking about. The police officer let a man who had killed someone else go after a short series of questions about an event that had no witnesses except the killer in question. How the feth is that ok? What kind of police officer walks up to a the scene of a killing, looks at the killer and hears "it was self defense" and just whimsically rides his car home feeling good about himself? Stand your ground is about establishing innocence, not blanketly avoiding investigation because you don't feel like it was needed. Someone fething died. A kid. There is a process involved when someones life involved that has to go beyond the short decisions of a DA in an office.

**Bromsy**

ShumaGorath wrote:
mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

**purplefood**

'Love thy neighbour'
Seems like the bible approves Bromsy...

**ShumaGorath**

Bromsy wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

How can I respond to this without getting banned?

**AustonT**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

How can I respond to this without getting banned?

"That's horrendous and immoral, I disagree. I'm no Kato Kaelin."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for reference I wouldn't say that, it's Florida. You dispose of bodies in the Everglades.

**Bromsy**

purplefood wrote:'Love thy neighbour'
Seems like the bible approves Bromsy...

That's me, on the side of the saints.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
"That's horrendous and immoral, I disagree. I'm no Kato Kaelin."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for reference I wouldn't say that, it's Florida. You dispose of bodies in the Everglades.

I did forget about the stupidly high water table. You win this round.

**ShumaGorath**

AustonT wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

How can I respond to this without getting banned?

"That's horrendous and immoral, I disagree. I'm no Kato Kaelin."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for reference I wouldn't say that, it's Florida. You dispose of bodies in the Everglades.

That does not adequately convey the disgust I feel for you all.

**purplefood**

Tell us what you really feel Shuma...

**CptJake**

ShumaGorath wrote:Because they didn't know what they were talking about. The police officer let a man who had killed someone else go after a short series of questions about an event that had no witnesses except the killer in question. How the feth is that ok? What kind of police officer walks up to a the scene of a killing, looks at the killer and hears "it was self defense" and just whimsically rides his car home feeling good about himself? Stand your ground is about establishing innocence, not blanketly avoiding investigation because you don't feel like it was needed. Someone fething died. A kid. There is a process involved when someones life involved that has to go beyond the short decisions of a DA in an office.

Talk about not knowing what you are talking about. Zimmerman was taken to the police station in cuffs.

What process do you feel was not followed now that you hopefully understand Zimmerman was not just left at the scene by the cops.

**AustonT**

Bromsy wrote:

I did forget about the stupidly high water table. You win this round.

and the Alligators and wild hogs. The latter of which will happily munch on human flesh...I don't actually know if gators do or if that's a myth.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That does not adequately convey the disgust I feel for you all.

/shrug
Can't win em all I suppose.

**ShumaGorath**

CptJake wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Because they didn't know what they were talking about. The police officer let a man who had killed someone else go after a short series of questions about an event that had no witnesses except the killer in question. How the feth is that ok? What kind of police officer walks up to a the scene of a killing, looks at the killer and hears "it was self defense" and just whimsically rides his car home feeling good about himself? Stand your ground is about establishing innocence, not blanketly avoiding investigation because you don't feel like it was needed. Someone fething died. A kid. There is a process involved when someones life involved that has to go beyond the short decisions of a DA in an office.

Talk about not knowing what you are talking about. Zimmerman was taken to the police station in cuffs.

What process do you feel was not followed now that you hopefully understand Zimmerman was not just left at the scene by the cops.

Read the end of my post, I acknowledge. He was then set free with minimal investigation. That's the process that I feel was missing, the process that actually establishes any of his claims as truth. You don't take someone that has killed someone else while alone with them and believe their story and pat them on the back as they leave the station. [b]You do some god damn police work and then put it in front of a court of law to determine their innocence.[/i]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
Bromsy wrote:

I did forget about the stupidly high water table. You win this round.

and the Alligators and wild hogs. The latter of which will happily munch on human flesh...I don't actually know if gators do or if that's a myth.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That does not adequately convey the disgust I feel for you all.

/shrug
Can't win em all I suppose.

The cowardice of the people on this forum is shocking sometimes. That not only are so many people ok with letting justice be abandoned, that they're somehow appalled that there is even an attempt at a trial is appalling. There is no moral high ground in this country anymore. You know what I'd do if a kid half my size was suspicious? I wouldn't confront him with a gun. You know what I would do if he attacked me without a weapon? I wouldn't murder him point blank with my little push button problem solver. Zimmermans actions were those of a coward. If he's innocent then he's innocent, the court will decide. But he's a coward and so are his supporters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, look at this. You're discussing how you would bury a teenagers body after aiding in his murder. How is no mod doing anything about this? Why am I the one that keeps getting banned for this stuff